[The dollar amounts have been changed to reflect a correction of a reporting error]

For the first time publicly, there is information on record to suggest the magnitude of damages being sought by Rectrix Aerodrome centers in its federal civil suit against Barnstable Municipal Airport.

While it remains unclear just how much Rectrix is seeking. Reports by two experts for Rectrix suggest the range in actual damages could be between $1.5 million and $7.1 million. Cases brought under Federal Racketeering Influence Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statutes allow for triple actual damages.

The dollar range is included in documents filed by airport attorneys Jan. 7 seeking to strike those reports from admissible evidence. Among the complaints by airport attorneys is that Rectrix has not clearly identified what it is seeking for damages, but instead references the reports in its answer to such questions.

In addition to calling calculations in the damages report “unreliable and meaningless,” the filing by airport attorney Scott Lewis of Anderson & Kreiger states, “The Shefftz Report contains the only computations of damages that have ever been disclosed by Rectrix,” and that “Rectrix never made timely or proper disclosures of its damages computations.”

The Jan. 7 filing comes two days after U.S. District Court of Massachusetts Judge Richard Stearns denied a request to allow longer than usual documents in upcoming motions for summary judgment (see related).

The analysis by Rectrix’s expert on forgone jet fuel sales from third parties ranged from $1.2 million based on a portion of historical sales up to $6.4 million for 100 percent of historical sales and five years of forgone future profits.

In addition, the report calculates fuel sales losses to customers under contract with Rectrix to be $357,000 through the current year, with a projected continued loss of an additional $366,000 over the next five years.

CORRECTED INFORMATION: According to that report, Rectrix would also be able to add $11,400 in damages paid to one of its clients to make it "whole because Rectrix was unable to provide fueling services."

That same report calculates that the town's aggressive approach to administrative costs for its enterprise accounts nets $38,000 more from the airport. It also offers a calculation of interest from airport accounts credited to other municipal operations at $178,000 over four fiscal years.

A rebuttal expert for the airport argues that the Rectrix report is based on flawed assumptions and, in portions, is "so broad that it provides no basis for establishing reasonable value."

The airport defense team also offered a counter-report taking aim at the methodology and conclusions of both reports.

The second report the airport wants to strike from evidence is an analysis of, among other things, the economic impact of the airport’s monopoly on jet fuel sales.

At press time, Rectrix had not filed its expected opposition to the motions to strike.